Jason, James, Jesus and Wisdom

Jason has a post up about some of the Wisdom literature and the book of James.

These are brief samplings of the parallels between James and one non-canonical book of wisdom. I believe that they show us that James has some definite traits of wisdom literature.

The Book of James As Christian Wisdom Literature | Pastoral Musings.

Although I may disagree with him about the ‘non-canonical’ status… I do think his post is an excellent on. Go over and give it a read if you can.

You Might Also Like

9 Replies to “Jason, James, Jesus and Wisdom”

  1. That’s fine, and I agree with the idea, but…well, the canon is an historical thing; it cannot be moved. But it can be rejected as the authoritative list. And since canon means ‘rule’, “open canon” sounds a little oxymoronic. Perhaps it would be better to say that we reject the historical canon as such in principle and find a different term for the literature we expect to find helpful for our theology. Or maybe I’m being nit-picky too early on Monday morning.

    1. I thing you are being a bit Constantinian nit-picky.

      I don’t reject the historical canon, so much as I would say that it is limited in our current, and progressive knowledge. Further, we know that early Christian theologians made use of these ‘hidden’ books in such a way that it shaped not only their by our Christological expectations.

      Besides, a rule is made to be broken.

      1. “Constantinian”? A low blow, even coming from a Rand Paul fanboy such as you.

        But if I may continue picking nits, you do reject the purpose of the canon in the sense that it was meant for, if you are willing to add things such as Sirach to it that were rejected by those who created it. That’s like saying the Constitution is pretty decent but subject to being ignored at your whim because you do not consider it the supreme law of the land, despite the fact that it was drawn up to be, affirms itself to be, and was ratified under the condition that it should be just that. Oh, wait…you believe that as well. Hey, at least you’re consistent! 😉

        1. Ha!

          But, the Constitution isn’t inspired, nor does it pertain or our knowledge of Christ, contrary to what some of you Glenn Beckisters think 🙂

          There was not one single canon, as you know, so to assume that it was drawn up for all time is to ignore the amendment process of the given to us in the Constitution. Er, wait.

          1. I wouldn’t say the canon is inspired either. 😉

            The Constitution does indeed set up an amendment process. Our canon did not: their pronouncements were meant to prohibit change, to circumscribe the sources of authoritative belief. Like MSNBC.

  2. Steve Douglas :

    I wouldn’t say the canon is inspired either. ;-)

    The Constitution does indeed set up an amendment process. Our canon did not: their pronouncements were meant to prohibit change, to circumscribe the sources of authoritative belief. Like MSNBC.

    You mean like the Articles of Confederation and its perpetual union?

    Anything recognized by humanity can be progressed later to include an expansion due to temporal blindness. Unlike Foxnews which causes permenant blindness and mental health issues, inspiration doesn’t always remain stagnate. Sometimes, humans progress to the point, past political goals of temporal canonization (think Reagan) to understand that what they had previously seen as fitting now needs expansion.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.